Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/9440/2011 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 9440 of 2011
=========================================================
RANABHAI
MALABHAI HARIJAN & 1 - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR.
KANJIBHAI M BHUT for
Applicants
Ms.
Manisha L. Shah, APP, for respondent
No.1
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
Date
: 13/07/2011 ORAL ORDER
Rule.
Learned APP, waives service of notice of Rule for respondent –
State.
This
application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure in connection with
first information report registered at C.R.No.I-108 of 2011 with
Tharad police station, Dist: Banaskantha for the offences punishable
under Sections 376, 363, 366, 406, 504,506(2), 114 of the Indian
Penal Code, Sections 3(i)(x), 3(i)(ii) and 3(i)(xi) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes [Prevention of Atrocity] Act.
Learned
counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are relative
of the co-accused Devabhai Malabhai Harijan who is enlarged on bail
today. They belong to Harijan community and, therefore, the
provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes [Prevention
of Atrocity] Act will not apply.
Besides, the applicants are available during the course of
investigation. It is further submitted that in view of the above,
the applicants may be granted anticipatory bail.
Heard
Learned APP for the respondent – State.
Having
heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the
case and taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of
allegations, role attributed to the accused and punishment
prescribed for the alleged offences, without discussing the evidence
in detail, at this stage, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail
to the applicants. This Court has also taken into consideration the
law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Siddharam
Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. Reported in
[2011]1 SCC 694, wherein the Apex Court reiterated the law
laid down by the Constitutional Bench in the case of Shri
Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. Reported in [1980]2 SCC 565.
Learned
counsel for the parties do not press for further reasoned order.
In
the result, this application is allowed by directing that in the
event of the applicants herein being arrested pursuant to first
information report registered at C.R.No.I-108 of 2011 with Tharad
police station, Dist: Banaskantha, the applicants
shall be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with one surety of like amount on
following conditions :-
[a] shall
cooperate with the investigation and make available for interrogation
whenever required.
[b] shall
remain present at concerned Police Station on 25.7.2011 between
11:00 am to 2:00 pm:
[c] shall
not hamper the investigation in any manner nor shall directly or
indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any witness so
as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any
Police Officer;
[d] shall
at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the
Investigating Officer and the Court concerned and shall not change
the residence till the final disposal of the case or till further
orders;
[e]
will not leave India without the permission of the Court and, if
holding a Passport, shall surrender the same before the trial Court
immediately
[f] It
would be open to the Investigating Officer to file an application for
remand, if he considers it just and proper and the concerned
Magistrate would decide it on merits.
[g] despite
this order, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to apply to
the competent Magistrate, for police remand of the applicants. The
applicants shall remain present before the learned Magistrate on the
first date of hearing of such application and on all subsequent
occasions, as may be directed by the learned Magistrate. This would
be sufficient to treat the accused in the judicial custody for the
purpose of entertaining application of the prosecution for police
remand. This is, however, without prejudice to the right of the
accused to seek stay against an order of remand, if ultimately
granted, and the power of the learned Magistrate to consider such a
request in accordance with law. It is clarified that the applicants,
even if, remanded to the police custody, upon completion of such
period of police remand, shall be set free immediately, subject to
other conditions of this anticipatory bail order. Rule made absolute.
Application is disposed of accordingly.
Direct
service is permitted.
(ANANT
S. DAVE, J.)
[swamy]
Top